Form 1 NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSIMENT BOARD Award No, 7835
SECOPTD DIVISION Docket No. 77+2
2-C&O-CM-'79

The Second Division consisted of the regular members and in addition Referee George S. Roukis when award was rendered,

( System Federation No. 4, Railway Employes'

Department, A. F. of L. C. 1. 0.

Parties to Dispute: ( (Carmen)
(
( Chesapeake and Ohio Railvr'ay Company

Dispute: Claim of Fyn.ployes:

1. That Cayman-tentative, Larry D. Eying eras unjustly and excessively

disciplined (ten days actual suspension plus an entry recorded

on his service record) as result oz' investigation held in the

office of -the Tool Car Foreman, at result of investigation held

in the office of the Tool Car foreman, at Rainelle, West ~lixg:Lnia,

11:00 nom., Friday, August 27, 1976, the changes were not

.proven to be true in violation of Rule 37 of the chop Crafts

Agreement,

2, Accordingly, Evring is entitled to be ,reimbursed for all wanes

lost whsle serving out said suspension, the 10 days lost to be

counted as accumulative days towards his 1977 vacation and the

entry be xen~oved fnoYi his service record.

Findings:

The Second Division of the Adjustment Board, upon the whole .record and all the evidence, finds that:

The carrier or carriers and the errploye or employes involved in this dispute axe respectively carrier and e:.iploye within the moaning of tire Railway Labor Act as approved June 21, 1934.

This Division of the Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over the dispute involved herein.

Patties to said dispute waived .right of appearance at hearing thereon.

This Board is certainly mindful of its appellate responsibility to insure that disciplinary determinations axe fair, impartial and commensurate to the gravity of -the offense.

After carefully revievri..ng the facts of this case we do not believe that Carrier acted arbitrarily or capriciously when it suspended claimant for ten (10) days for teeing absent from duty without permission on August 17, 1976.
Form 1 Award No. 7835
Page 2 Docket No. 77+2
2-c&o-CM-' 79

Claimant was under a specific obligation to comply with Agreement Rules 21(a) and 22, which axe quoted in pertinent .part hereinafter:

Rule 21(a) .provides, "Employer will not be permitted to lay off from work without first securing permission."

Rule 22 reads, "An em,ploye detained fm work on account of sickness or fox any other good cause shall notify his foreman promptly."

In the instant case, Claimant should have secured the name of the C.B. - Citizen's Band - operator as a minimal precaution, but more importantly he should have pro,.-.q ptl y notified his .foreman when he arrived at his home at 3:00 A.M. on August 18, 176.

Carrier is not expected -Lo canvass systematicaZ'Ly :its employer to ascertain work availability. The Agreement Bales ( supra) spell out in unmistai:able language the procedures and reporting requirements attendant to absences and layoffs. The burden of compliance falls inexorably upon the eraploye. Claimant did not obtain the needed permission to lay off fro... work on his :re~;-ulax assign.~nent. There were no compelling -mitigating c:ixetunstat~ces to excuse his actions. (See Second Divis:i.on Award 6057). He thus, by his actions,, violated the Agreement.

Moreover, we do not find Carrier's suspension penalty excessive when measured against the seriousness of the infraction arid his prior service record.

We trill deny the claim.

A W A R D

Claim denied.

NATIONAL RAILROAD ADJUSTI'.ENT BOARD

By Order of Second Division

Attest: Executive Secretary
National Railroad Adjustment Board

f,..~ ~ .. ® . ·~'

. -x

~Bxarclz - Adminirtxat:ive !assistant

Dated a lch-icago, Illinois, ti::is 7th day of February, 19790